Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify. Therefore, understanding the evolution of our planet can help us establish and explain the foundations for more harmonious and sustainable coexistence. — Seeker25

I don't see how certain evolutionary trends - even if they promote peaceful coexistence - are necessarily anything other than the consequences of nature. Is the peaceful coexistence to be found in evolutionary trends the desired end? Is that what we ought to seek? Because you appear to have no justification for that ought.

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence. — Seeker25

I just don't see how this fact justifies the belief that looking to these trends for our morality is valid or would be effective. We live in a modern world that very much bucks the circumstances that may have formed human nature.

As for your practical examples:

You can correlate the evolved traits you assign to humans with those you find desirable, or ethical, all day, but I don't think it validates your thesis. Neither does assuming something like censorship is remarkable evolutionarily. I do of course agree that humans and animals need places to live, and that censorship is generally bad. But these examples don't do a very good job of supporting your thesis.

Let’s grant your thesis that what you’re calling the evolution of the Earth contains important guidance for how humans should behave in order to flourish as a species. Let’s also agree that there are “trends” that can be discovered and used as the basis for that guidance.

Here is what I think you need to argue for:

1. Very few humans give much consideration to the flourishing of the species, and they need reasons – ethical reasons, presumably – why something so abstract should count more than their immediate practical concerns, which may be pursued both successfully and unethically.

2. The trends you’ve isolated are uniformly positive; they can be easily translated into familiar ethical precepts for humans. Isn’t that stacking the deck? Couldn’t we also talk about trends of destruction, suffering, and death? If we knew the end of Earth’s story, and it was one in which the positive trends prevailed, we might be justified in putting the current spotlight on them. But for all we know, the really significant trends are going to turn out to be the destructive ones.

That the world has evolved in such-and-such a way does not imply what we ought to do. Saying otherwise is indulging in the Naturalistic Fallacy (the logical one, not the silly idea that what is natural is good).

Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify. — Seeker25

How do you move from how things are to how things ought to be?

Thesis

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence. Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify. Therefore, understanding the evolution of our planet can help us establish and explain the foundations for more harmonious and sustainable coexistence. — Seeker25

Firstly, well-written OP — kudos for presenting a cohesive argument. However, I wonder if the reliance on 'evolutionary principles' here may be leaning into an idealization. It seems to attribute a kind of intentional moral guidance to evolutionary trends, which could be seen as filling the gap left by traditional creation myths. If we look at your Practical Examples, 'evolution' could almost be replaced with 'God' or 'the Creator,' and the text would still resonate, for instance, 'God has endowed us with...'

I don’t mean to imply this as a criticism of personal belief, as I understand you’re presenting this as a secular framework. But I think it's worth questioning whether attributing ethical direction to natural processes risks an overly idealistic optimism. After all, evolutionary processes are not inherently moral; they produce life and diversity, but they also result in competition, predation, and extinction.

It’s a fresh perspective, and I hope these questions don’t come across as too cynical. I just think a pinch of skepticism might help refine this viewpoint and open up further discussion on how we align human ethics with, rather than simply model them on, natural processes.

I would recommend you need to expand your reading. There have been scientific proposals that explore ideas you might find compatible, such as Scientists Propose ‘Law of Nature’ Expanding on Evolution. But evolutionary biology is a very complex subject so don't look for easy answers.

The word you're looking for is "progress". People used to believe in it.

Humans have only existed for 0.004% of the Earth’s lifespan. Before formulating principles, it is essential to consider what occurred during the remaining 99.996% of that time. — Seeker25

I take it evolution is a word reserved primarily to describe living things. We could say that the earth evolved from star dust into a fiery ball, but that is metaphor. So before there was life on earth, there was no evolutionary process on earth; evolution happens where living things happen.

Similarly, ethics is a word reserved to describe personal activity. Ethics didn’t exist on earth before people did.

But life and evolution existed before people did. So for ethics to derive from or be bound to evolution, you have to show where ethics lived before people evolved. Life, and for that matter physics, seems to be equal parts generation and decay, hunger and murder before satiation and peace. So it is not clear to me that when ethics arose it was a necessarily related to evolution, just like it is not clear to me that life and evolution arose following a model that could be found in chemistry or physical things that don’t live.

Life is sui generis, arising out of physics/chemistry, but unlike physics/chemistry. With life there arises its own driving forces, namely evolution. Evolution did not arise outside of or before life.
Then humans arose or evolved, and then ethics came to be. Ethics, it seems to me, is sui generis, arising through the evolution of human beings but once ethics came to be it created its own driving forces, namely good and bad and free agency between them. Just like we can’t look to only chemical reactions to understand “eating” or “reproduction” or “genetic information” found in evolution, we may not be able to look to evolution to explain “murder” and “bad killing versus good killing” in ethics.

An interesting opening post.

I think it is mistaken to assume evolution is 'good'. I get the gist of what you mean, but what exactly are you referring to when you say "evolution"?

There are numerous ways in which this term can be applied and so it is often easy to mistaken one use for another. I think this would be the best place to breakdown into smaller pieces what your interests are and then you will be furnished with the relevant concepts (or perhaps other can assist in providing some for you to adopt or use in opposition to your own views).

GL :)

I am increasingly convinced that everything aligned with the trends of evolution is good, everything that opposes it is bad, and everything else is indifferent. It is precisely in this "indifferent" space that people must exercise their freedom.

What do you think? — Seeker25

Since I don’t know if you’re knowledgeable of this, it might be of interest to check out an overview of the Gaia Hypothesis, maybe especially when it comes to criticisms of it. There’s no conclusive evidence that it’s a farce but, Cartesian-ly skeptic as most are when it comes to things that don't suit our fancy – and I here include everyone from typical physicalists to typical monotheists - there is also no current conclusive evidence for this hypothesis that would convince the so called “skeptics”.

I’m also not familiar with your general philosophical background on metaphysics, but the general outlook you’ve outlined – this along with the Gaia hypothesis – can easily be found in keeping with notions such as that of an Anima Mundi. One in which a pre-Abrahamic notion of Logos pervades all that is – be it living or nonliving.

If this is so far not off-putting for you, then you might also be interested in C.S. Peirce’s notion of Agapism which can parallel Teilhard’s notion of cosmic evolution in general – both of which can be in general keeping to the former two concepts linked to.

Of one possible concern, all these views can easily be ridiculed as being in some ways teleological – which, as a metaphysical outlook, is grossly unpopular nowadays. (Then again, as the bumper sticker saying goes, Popularity is (or at least can be) a Socially Transmitted Disease.)

I don’t have much to comment on in terms of being pro- or contra- your generalized thesis in the terms you’ve presented. But if you happen to not be familiar with the concepts just specified, the links provided might be of benefit as a relatively easy to read springboard toward further thoughts and ideas.

As to entertaining the notion of "Nature being good” (its evolutionary process included), one here risks being labeled a Nature-worshiper if one did – a deplorable thing to be from the vantage of both physicalists and monotheists alike. Then, to maybe counterbalance this train of thought, there’s a partial lyric one can quote from a song by a former band called Nirvana: “Nature is a whore”. In overview of how I make sense of this quote, it will sustain and support (and in this manner take the side of) those filled with vice just as much as it will those filled with virtue … but this only up to a point, as per an ever increasing global warming that holds the potential to more or less wipe the slate clean of what we, maybe a bit too anthropocentrically, term “sapience”.

Whatever one presumes it to be - good, bad, or just plain ugly in its shear impartiality - I’m certain that Nature, and its evolution via natural selection in general, will persist in being long after we’re all dead and gone to this world. Just as it did long before we appeared.

hat the world has evolved in such-and-such a way does not imply what we ought to do. — Banno

:up: That's all I had to say, personally.

:up: :up:

Here's a topic-adjecent discussion ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904662

I don't see how certain evolutionary trends - even if they promote peaceful coexistence - are necessarily anything other than the consequences of nature. Is the peaceful coexistence to be found in evolutionary trends the desired end? Is that what we ought to seek? Because you appear to have no justification for that ought. — ToothyMaw

When we observe animals, we see the results of evolutionary trends in their purest form. They have not been interfered with by intelligent and free beings. When humans appear with our ability to accept or interfere with natural laws, we are faced with a choice: to follow the trends of evolution in pursuit of peaceful coexistence, or to go against them. We are free to choose the desired end. Where will we end up if we go against the trends?

I just don't see how this fact justifies the belief that looking to these trends for our morality is valid or would be effective. We live in a modern world that very much bucks the circumstances that may have formed human nature. — ToothyMaw

We, as humans, must accept the existence of a framework, defined by evolutionary trends, that cannot be changed. In our modern world, it is up to us to uncover and understand the circumstances that have shaped our human nature—this is knowledge. However, we can observe the consequences of attempting to go against this framework (such as violence, intolerance of diversity, climate change, etc.). While we, as free beings, have the power to destroy ourselves, we cannot alter the fundamental laws of this framework (ethic principles)

1. Very few humans give much consideration to the flourishing of the species, and they need reasons – ethical reasons, presumably – why something so abstract should count more than their immediate practical concerns, which may be pursued both successfully and unethically — J

You are right, and it frightens me to think that what you describe reminds me of how our ancestors—the animals—behave: they show little concern for their peers and focused solely on immediate needs. We, as more sophisticated beings, have the capacity to understand and empathize with others. Our ancestors were not endowed with a fully developable consciousness.

2. The trends you’ve isolated are uniformly positive; they can be easily translated into familiar ethical precepts for humans. Isn’t that stacking the deck? Couldn’t we also talk about trends of destruction, suffering, and death? If we knew the end of Earth’s story, and it was one in which the positive trends prevailed, we might be justified in putting the current spotlight on them. But for all we know, the really significant trends are going to turn out to be the destructive ones. — J

It seems to me that your point addresses two different issues:

A. The Problem of Evil: As far as I know, no one has fully explained the existence of evil. In my opinion, most evil arises from human actions that go against evolutionary trends. I have doubts about the second source of evil (such as diseases and the collateral effects of nature), but I believe these could perhaps be explained as deviations from the evolutionary trends.

B.Destructive Trends: You state, “the really significant trends are going to turn out to be the destructive ones.” This, indeed, is a negative point of view, but it can be reframed positively if we recognize that human actions are not the same as evolutionary trends—they are simply the choices of free individuals who may act against long-standing trends. In this context, things begin to make sense. Evolutionary trends are beneficial for humanity, and our goal should be to align our actions with them. I believe we must acknowledge that our freedom is so vast that we have the power to decide how we want our world to end up.

How do you move from how things are to how things ought to be? — Banno

Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts. Humans, through their free will, must decide how they want to proceed—"how things ought to be"—considering what has happened in the past and the far-reaching consequences of their choices. We can easily envision two possible scenarios: one in which humans align their decisions with evolutionary trends, leading to peaceful, balanced, and harmonious development; and another where these trends are opposed, resulting in death, freedom only for those in power, economic and social inequality, slavery, widespread pollution, erasure of beauty, etc.

Humanity is disoriented and unclear about how to act. — Seeker25

Humanity is not a single entity. It is made up of many individuals who each have their own ideas about how to act.

What is considered "ethical" is highly subjective. Whose definition should be accepted?

I am increasingly convinced that everything aligned with the trends of evolution is good — Seeker25

Is the evolution of the great white shark into a more efficient killer a good thing?

Evolutionary trends are beneficial for humanity, — Seeker25

This is the assumption I'm questioning, at least for purposes of argument. Perhaps you need to say more about what an evolutionary trend is? To avoid begging the question, I think you need to give a description of these trends in value-neutral terms, so we can decide for ourselves whether they must necessarily be beneficial for humanity.

However, I wonder if the reliance on 'evolutionary principles' here may be leaning into an idealization. It seems to attribute a kind of intentional moral guidance to evolutionary trends, which could be seen as filling the gap left by traditional creation myths. If we look at your Practical Examples, 'evolution' could almost be replaced with 'God' or 'the Creator,' and the text would still resonate, for instance, 'God has endowed us with... — Wayfarer

My approach is based on facts; in this way, I respect different personal beliefs while also proposing a starting platform (the facts explained by scientists) that can achieve broad consensus, regardless of individual beliefs

But I think it's worth questioning whether attributing ethical direction to natural processes risks an overly idealistic optimism. After all, evolutionary processes are not inherently moral; they produce life and diversity, but they also result in competition, predation, and extinction — Wayfarer

Of course, it is worth questioning whether attributing ethical content to natural evolution is correct or not. To me, it seems like the most solid foundation we have for ethical principles. What other foundations could be more solid than a trend that has persisted for millions of years?
I would say that competition, predation, and extinction are not primary trends; rather, they are mechanisms that drive evolution.

The word you're looking for is "progress". People used to believe in it. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but progress with important qualifications: peaceful, inclusive for all, respecting human dignity, and without violating the trends of evolution.

So before there was life on earth, there was no evolutionary process on earth; evolution happens where living things happen. — Fire Ologist

I don’t see it the same way. Scientists explain that when the Earth began to cool, the 118 basic elements that came from the stars started combining to form molecules. One of these was water, while others were organic molecules essential for life. The Earth embarked on an evolutionary process that ultimately led to the emergence of life. I don’t know the causes, but we must stick to the facts. Evolution bagan before life

But life and evolution existed before people did. So for ethics to derive from or be bound to evolution, you have to show where ethics lived before people evolved — Fire Ologist

Your question about where ethics resided before life is well-posed, but I don’t know the answer—just as I don’t know where intelligence, life, or consciousness were, and yet no one doubts that all three exist. To progress in a complex line of reasoning like this, we cannot demand that everything be perfectly clear. Ultimately, we will need to assess whether the hypothesis makes sense, whether it explains what is happening in the world, and whether we can draw conclusions about how we, and the humanity, ought to act.

Evolution did not arise outside of or before life.
Then humans arose or evolved, and then ethics came to be. Ethics, it seems to me, is sui generis, arising through the evolution of human beings but once ethics came to be it created its own driving forces — Fire Ologist

An OP is necessarily limited in length. In a future post, I will explore some topics in greater depth.

You entirely missed the point. Sure, science tells us how things are. It does not tell us how they ought be.

Even if "Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts" we cannot conclude from that alone how things ought to be.

This is a gap in your argument.

We can easily envision two possible scenarios: one in which humans align their decisions with evolutionary trends, leading to peaceful, balanced, and harmonious development; and another where these trends are opposed, resulting in death, freedom only for those in power, economic and social inequality, slavery, widespread pollution, erasure of beauty, etc. — Seeker25

That comment shows a very deep misapprehension of evolution.

You entirely missed the point. Sure, science tells us how things are. It does not tell us how they ought be.

Even if "Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts" we cannot conclude from that alone how things ought to be. — Banno

Since your invoking Hume’s guillotine—short of the “is” of The Good, as per platonic or neoplatonic notions—what then might be rationally used to establish what one ought do or what ought be?

Grunts of “yay” and “boo”? But these too are things that are, rather than rational appraisals of what ought to be—and so this too succumbs to the same problem.

I'm not here intending to argue for The Good, just point out what I so far take to be obvious.

My approach is based on facts; — Seeker25

Not at all. It's based on sentiment.

That's not germane here. You can see my opinion in other threads.

Not at all. It's based on sentiment. — Wayfarer

Yep. Scientism as a faith.

Yes, but progress with important qualifications: peaceful, inclusive for all, respecting human dignity, and without violating the trends of evolution. — Seeker25

Biological evolution is not inclusive for all. Individuals being weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection is one of the important trends of evolution.

Which is more consistent with evolutionary trends, promoting the benefit of all, or eugenics?

Biological evolution is not inclusive for all. Individuals being weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection is one of the important trends of evolution.

Which is more consistent with evolutionary trends, promoting the benefit of all, or eugenics? — wonderer1

Most people seem pretty content with this though. Those who are happy for a night of physical pleasure can get someone/become impregnated. Those, who found their "companion" and want to procreate more life, live on. Most "everyday folk" think this is good. The ones that don't procreate, don't have this pleasure/happiness, according to the happy-parental folk.

I think what needs to be re-evaluated is this mentality itself. Clearly, the most moral thing is to prevent future people who suffer, but this is not following the dictates of evolution. And about these dictates of evolution, that is a complete fallacy (appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy) to think that a sort of "law of nature" (evolution) is something we should act upon.

You should be looped in the above:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/947684

↪javra
That's not germane here. You can see my opinion in other threads.

Not at all. It's based on sentiment. — Wayfarer

Yep. Scientism as a faith. — Banno

If you say so. Still, to make my former point a bit clearer, in the absence of an “is” which grounds our “oughts”, all systems of ethics can be decried as sentimental—this rather than rational. One could for example apply Hume’s guillotine even to virtue ethics: the difference between concrete instantiations of “what virtue is” (which, to be clear, can be as relative as anything else) versus “what virtue ought to be”, the latter so that one might for instance become more virtuous than one currently is. The first will not ground the second, except via sentiment—i.e., except via emotion rather than reason—not when there’s a complete absence of something like The Good being a globally existential “is” toward which one should aspire, in this case so as to gain greater virtue.

Why I brought this up: While the OP poster's arguments are full of gaps in what he has so far written, his general outlook appears to me to lean toward the virtuous, or else to aspire toward it. I want to cut @Seeker25 some slack, and am point out that the argument of Hume’s guillotine to too broad in that it applies to all ethical systems devoid of an ultimate objective Good that existentially is.

I don’t sponsor his arguments so far, but, to try to take his side, here is a trivial example of how evolution and ethics can converge:

Consider three possible types of ice-cream: a) ice-cream comprised of cyanide, b) ice-cream comprised of dirt, and c) ice-cream comprised of nutrients. Type (a), (b), and (c) otherwise all have the same delicious flavor to our tastebuds due to the latest innovations in chemistry. Save for death-yearning folk and their ilk, all will readily deem the consumption of (a) unethical—one would not be virtuous to give it to another so that they might trustingly eat of it, for example. As to those who knowingly choose to eat it, evolution selects against their being, leaving only non-cyanide consuming humans behind. Type (b) is not as bad, for it does not kill. But your and your friends’ indigestion upon eating it will in effect be a reduction of health, and hence of eudemonia (wellbeing). Whereas type (c) will not be unethical to consume whenever the cravings for a moderate amount of ice-cream emerge. All this by way of who we are due to the forces of natural selection which has shaped our current being.

There are certain human behaviors—say the gleeful perpetuation of genocides against the Other, gross misinformation that destroys all trust in what is real, the launching of nuclear weapons in today’s world, etc.—which in many ways parallel ice-cream type (a): they lead to the destruction of life. Other human behaviors, like the addiction to substances, will parallel ice-cream type (b): they will not kill but will reduce general wellbeing. And certain human behaviors can be likened to ice-cream type (c): they will improve wellbeing when acted out in their own proper contexts. Behaviors (a) will be unethical, behaviors (b) will be less than ethical, and behaviors (c) will in its proper contexts be ethical. And all this will be bound to the evolved forms of life that we are and to the very evolutionary constraints that has led to our current being as humans. Yes, there’s competition in nature, and the competition piques our interest generally, but there is far more cooperation in nature which is usually taken for granted in full: for starters, every multicellular organism is a cooperation between individual living beings we call somatic cells. (Place an individual somatic cell in a pastry dish with sufficient required stimulation and nutrients and it will live out its life just fine—I’ve at least been told this is the case for neurons.)

Ok, I thoroughly grant that to claim all this as some sort of definitive grounding for what ethics is and what ought to be would be fully sentimental, rather than rational. But behind this sentiment there is yet some inkling of convergence between evolution and ethics: the destruction of our species from within or else from without we deem not good and hence unethical (well, most sane people do), and there is little denying that natural selection has selected for this in us humans over eons. But natural selection is not an omnipotent god that determines all aspects of what we do. And if our species does become destroyed, natural selection will continue doing what it has always done: select for life that best conforms to its ever-changing contextual realities, which sapience tends to excel at (at least when its head isn’t buried in a donkey’s behind).

And evolution doesn’t operate on bodily physiology alone; it works on the behaviors of life galore.

Again, this isn’t an argument I will defend tooth and bone, but I do want to cut @Seeker25 some slack here. And preliminarily chopping down his arguments by evoking Hume’s guillotine and thereby decrying it as sentimental is overkill—in that Hume’s guillotine equally applies to all appraisals of ethics which do not incorporate an objective Good that is and that is to be aspired toward.

I am sympathetic to your instincts and the direction of your argument. But I am mindful of the difficulties. to take simple example, Dinosaurs roamed the earth and dominated the fauna for millions of years, and then rather suddenly died out, and were eventually replaced by mammals. What was their sin? Pride, perhaps?

You might like to look into eco-philosophy a little, not much discussed or represented on this site, unfortunately. Try this maybe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_Næss
Lots of links there to follow up if you are interested. One advantage of this kind of approach is that it avoids the separation of human and natural interests.

The judgement that evolution makes is survival or extinction. Easy enough from there to say that survival is good and extinction is bad, (from the pov of life, at least) but you see at once the difficulty - the judgement is always provisional and temporary and may be reversed tomorrow - see dinosaurs above.

The industrial revolution seemed like a good idea at the time, and led to human growth; now, some of us are wondering ...

In emotivist's ethical principle, morality is for emotions, not beliefs or facts. Therefore when you say something is morally good means same thing as saying "boo" or "hooray".

So, which ethical principle were you talking about here?